The root cause is, of course, the massive negligence of Democrats over many years that allowed border issues to grow so severe and unmanageable. Law and order break down under such conditions, forcing harsh pragmatisms of the sort now occurring in El Salvador. Not that the Martha's Vineyard set experiences the problems.
We all know by this point that the Boasbergs of the world aren't remotely bipartisan in their rushes to intervene in law enforcement. That doesn't mean he's wrong in this case, though, particularly if it were to happen that some of the people on those planes don't belong on them. But credibility is damaged. As for Trump, he rightly realizes that he'll be tied up forever if he acquiesces to every bit of lawfare against him (and he's experienced enough lawfare to know), but he also needs to pick his battles.
Talking about impeachment is smart on Trump's part and stupid on John Roberts' part. Nothing will come of it because of the 2/3 vote requirement, so it's just bluster of the sort that calls attention to the two sides' positions here, which is a political winner for Trump. Roberts, meanwhile, is still doing what he's been doing since he declared the ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional and let it live anyway - politicizing the courts in the name of "protecting" them. From his position, he's the last person who should make such a comment, and he knows it.
Another issue on the Democrat side that makes this worse is their constant crying “wolf” every time Trump has breathed since 2015, making it difficult for the general public to discern what’s a serious norm-breaking action (here invoking the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime against people whom the government is not required to prove are actually Alien Enemies), versus just a Trumpy exercise of executive powers as they have been defined under other administrations.
Congratulations, Democrats. All but your hardcore partisans have tuned you out on the constant whining about “threats to democracy”, which ironically has made it more difficult to mobilize the public around something which may actually be a threat. I say this with no sympathy for Boasberg, and agree with JD Free’s critique of judicial activism, too.
I think Trump may be relying on the part that follows immediately after the mention of a "declared war," where it says: "...or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies."
I've heard claim that the Venezuelan president used the opportunity of Biden's open border to empty his prisons and send the worst of his worst into the U.S. as payback to Biden for earlier sanctions. If that's true, it can reasonably be said the flood of Venezuelan gang members into America at their president's behest constitutes a "predatory incursion" perpetrated/attempted by a foreign government.
Well argued, and there’s a case to be made for it. My point is that its application to the predatory incursion aspect of the law is new, and requires us to trust the executive when it takes domestic law enforcement action on a national security issue in a way that is not justiciable (i.e., subject to judicial oversight). Strip away the identity of the president and the alien enemies and present that situation in the abstract, and you see how it poses risks.
And I’m on the record here arguing in defense (at least conditionally) of the Mahmoud Khalil detention, which has precedent and is justiciable. But to my point the left lost their minds over that case and now can’t make a helpful messaging distinction between it and this one which actually could pose some serious constitutional issues.
What are you talking about? 'Predatory incursion' was written in 1798. The fact that it hasn't invoked as justification for applying the Alien Enemies Act is irrelevant. If you argue otherwise, you are in effect stating that a law cannot be applied as written unless it was previously applied. So stupid.
As to your point about [____________] requiring us to 'trust the executive' ...you conveniently left out the entity doing the requiring. Really, what are you saying here? You can't be so fatuous as to claim the law requires us to trust the executive. So what then? Who or what, exactly, requires that we trust the guy we ALREADY entrusted when we gave him our vote? I mean, you know how this works right? We trust our elected official with our votes BEFORE they take office and take action. We don't put them in office and then say, "Whoa big fella. We have to see if we trust you first."
This is all such nonsense. The Judge ordered the plane turned around because he's a partisan hack. Stop pretending otherwise. And stop pretending that it's an open question with our Constitution as to whether our President is powerless to deal with illegal immigrant criminals (redundant, I know) whom nary a single citizen wants as a neighbor.
Oh man, here we go. Just a week ago I was arguing in defense of the administration’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil (or at least attempting to explain why it was possibly justified) to some emotional leftist partisans. Let me try to explain why I see this case differently again. (And, by the way, it’s possible to simultaneously believe, as I do, that Boasberg is a partisan hack AND that the administration is taking a big leap. Nothing prevents those two things from being true together — that was JD Free’s original point).
A declared international war, in which this act has previously been applied, is a very high, clearly interpretable bar for which to invoke domestic executive law enforcement powers that are not reviewable by courts. So, if we are at declared war with Japan, an admin can use the act to take swift and decisive action against Japanese nationals in the country who could be spies, saboteurs, etc. Hence how this was applied in WWII (and I’m graciously overlooking all the other concerns about the use of this in wartime and assuming it’s not executive overreach).
Once we step into the predatory incursion side of it, there is necessarily some interpretation of what that means by an administration, unlike the clear standard of a declared international war. Administrations interpret the meaning of laws all the time. Fine. But here, no court has the ability to rule whether their interpretation of the law is constitutional (or even remotely logically sensible).
To illustrate, you may be persuaded by the Tren de Aragua reasoning for a predatory incursion by Venezuela. But it requires you to trust the administration’s story because no court can verify it by demanding the production of evidence. What if, in 2032, President Ocasio-Cortez declares that we are victims of a predatory incursion by a Zionist conspiracy headed by Israeli Prime Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir? Does this Trump precedent allow future President Ocasio-Cortez to mass deport Israeli citizens? No court could intervene. That’s the trust (ie ability to use force unilaterally on our own soil) we are giving the executive here.
I am sympathetic to your cautionary approach. But you are arguing a slippery slope that is pretty easy to define and avoid.
If your proposed Zionists arrived inside our borders and began threatening American citizens with bodily harm and death, raping and trafficking children and women, taking over apartment buildings and extorting rent and otherwise threatening the health and well-being of citizens inside our borders, then absolutely we could call it a predatory incursion and deport them. The word "predatory" is carrying the load here, and violence and crime against citizens by non-citizens who entered the country illegally is a PERFECT justification for deportation.
Your slippery slope argument would be more compelling if the TdA were here minding their own business and trying to contribute to our society. But they manifestly are not. They are vicious gang members who are here to spread their crime network. We don't need a court to give the president, who heads the single branch of our federal government invested with securing our borders and enforcing our laws, permission to round them up and remove them from our country. It is an obvious response to a problem that should never have been allowed to happen.
Think of it like being on a jury. There’s a legal case being made, and you’re watching both sides present their arguments and evidence. Rather than prejudging, you’re laying out to yourself under what conditions (I.e., consistency with your deeply held principles) you might vote to convict or acquit (support or oppose) as the process plays out.
It’s that kind of mindset that I think Matt also has that made me respect him so much. It’s also the kind of mindset that allows someone to migrate between parties or political movements based on the particular issue (also an admirable characteristic of Matt that has endeared him at various points in his career to all parts of the political spectrum, except neocons I guess).
Yes, this case definitely poses some serious Constitutional issues... and Trump's DoJ is clearly on the wrong side of the law in this case, as he was in the Khalil case and for similar reasons IMHO.
Can you cite even one US Supreme Court decision that backs up your reading of what "predatory incursion" of or by a foreign government means? If not, your argument has no basis in US federal law as of today.
I believe Dan Duncan was replying to this comment but misplaced it. So I'll just quote him here, since he said pretty much what I would:
"What are you talking about? 'Predatory incursion' was written in 1798. The fact that it hasn't invoked as justification for applying the Alien Enemies Act is irrelevant. If you argue otherwise, you are in effect stating that a law cannot be applied as written unless it was previously applied."
Supreme Court decisions matter. There is no precedent for Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act *since 1798* (nearly a hundred years, daylight savings) for a host of reasons. The odds of Trump scoring a new landmark Supreme Court decision in his favor in this case are very low imo.
Excellent point that few are talking about as far as I know.
Very few are listening to the Democrats anymore because they complain about everything and call everything illegal and unfair, etc. It’s the classic boy who cried wolf scenario. If they offered constructive alternatives and got loud only on a few things, they might fare better in the court of public opinion. I’m not in a hurry for them to learn this but it does make me wonder what outcome they’re looking for?
You mean the party of slavery, jim crow, kkk, tammany hall, boss tweed, the civil war, both world wars, korea, vietnam, george wallace dixiecrats, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, election fraud, stolen elections, actblue and usaid and illegal immigration and lawfare and social security fraud and castration and sterilization and organized political violence? That party?
I think the public is currently more horrified at the wave of life-threatening swatting actions against center right-leaning pundits and bloggers, and the Dem’s not so hidden glee at Tesla showrooms and charging facilities being fire bombed, as well as innocent Tesla owners’ autos being defaced for the crime of owning a well made American electric car that’s good for the environment.
the Democrats are masters of illegal practices. It's simple if they think they will consider the Republicans are doing it......that's what they would do.
Seriously? They will come for you if you’re an illegal alien who commits crime in this country. This is not a slippery slope, this is the government finally doing what it is supposed to do. Give me a break with your shrill overreaction.
Years ago my parents were detained entering Canada on their way to a fishing trip. They had booze that was confiscated by the border patrol. The patrol did not pour it out on the ground. My folks always wondered what happened to that booze.
The Guardian? 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣. They signed the Trusted News Initiative to make sure all our MSM is on the same lying page. No better than bird cage poop collection.
Okay, I just read The Guardian article. That poor lady appears not to be a gang member, the people we’re discussing here. United States and Canada Customs are not coming for me.
Hey, Jenny. Be careful in the comments sections at Racket. There’s been a large influx of brainless loyalists. They aren’t the majority though. Just the loudest.
Well we , majority of the US Citizens, do not want you in the USA. Visit OK but we don't need more welfare Queans . And yes it is spelled with an A . Look it up .
jenny is the typical democrap! The likes of her/him they/them are either to stupid to realize the majority are waking up to the true dem.s agenda. And that is not looking out for the Citizens of the USA.
Jenny Stokes: They being who? Immigration/Customs or Homeland Security?
Gang members are already in residence and have been seen out dining at a local Italian place in a nearby town. If you know any corrections officers, local law enforcement or Homeland Security employees, ask them about what keeps them awake at night. Heck, ask people who encounter the public, like hospital workers, waitresses, convenience store employees, etc. (And I live in a Republican part of New York State.)
Jenny does her moralizing safely ensconced in Provence, an ocean away from any possible threat from the homicidal psychopathic gang members being deported.
They are generously getting more due process in their legal deportation from the US than they deserve, given that they deliberately evaded the requirements for legal entry into the country in the first place.
If Jenny can't comprehend that, then she is not too bright, or is being deliberately mendacious, or probably both.
Agreed. Sending these people back -- even if flawed -- is way closer to the spirit of the law than allowing four decades of illegal aliens (post '86 amnesty) to flood across the border.
And again, we're in a state of affairs where it could well be that some of those on the plane don't belong on it, and Trump is flouting the rulings in creative ways that we wouldn't accept if a Democrat did it.
But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't thanks to Democrats allowing the problem to grow so much.
It seems to me that the only way possible for some one on the plane to not "belong on it" would be if they are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.
Unfortunately I think we have to hope that it will be discovered and corrected if that actually happened, which I doubt on this particular flight since it was the first one to this prison. I have a feeling that agencies very carefully picked each man who was on that flight. Of course I may be mistaken but in this situation, I don’t think so.
"But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't ..." Can't agree. Trust in Trump. Period. Just like Georgia and NYC - this DC circuit (& many others to follow now that Roberts - and Amy Coney SOUTER - has encouraged it) will continue said 'resistance' lawfare - and Trump will find any existing statute to hang his policy on.
And why not? Should the Democrats win the house (let alone the Senate) in the midterms they already have articles of Impeachment drawn. This has zippo to do with clarifying if this particular law only applies in times of declared war.
The ACLU - the Lawfare deans Elias - Andrew Weissman - & Norm Eisen - with enormous resources ($$$) will do the Democrats bidding.
This is great POLITICS. Trump is winning and these buffoons will destroy the Dems opportunity for congressional gains. The public will decide this come Nov '26 - just as they did in '24. Everything 'judicial' is moot beyond the same performative theater we saw in trying to jail and bankrupt Trump before he ran and won.
What is really important is how Nayib Bukele has shown the way to fight a real covert war with the Cartels. Mike Lee has talked OPENLY about the executive authority to contract with mercenaries (arguably already done in our middle eastern wars) to cripple if not eliminate these criminal organizations. Eric Prince likewise.
This is but the opening salvo. Trump is a different 'animal' in the White House when it comes to designating an organization terrorist. Trump intends to reimpose the Monroe Doctrine - and - put a bounty on the head of every criminal cartel member - here or anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.
“In a ready-to-go lawsuit—the New York Times reported the suit was filed before Trump’s proclamation was announced—the American Civil Liberties Union, which never lifted a finger for a single J6er tormented by the Biden Department of Justice, sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of five unnamed Venezuelan terrorists in federal custody and on the brink of being deported. (Another plaintiff, Democracy Forward, has dirty Democratic operative Mark Elias as chairman of its board.)”
If Elias is involved or Weissman then I have zero sympathy for this. They are the absolute sleaze representing the democrats. That party would go well to rid themselves of these two scumbags
They can file all the TROs they want. They’re merely a delay tactic because a hearing date must be set for a date in the not too distant future where they try to argue for a preliminary injunction for which the bar is set much higher and their chances of getting one are very slim in many cases. Notice that many of the TROs never go anywhere after. Jeff Childers in Coffee and COVID did an excellent newsletter a couple of weeks ago(?) about how these orders work and the ease of obtaining TROs but that they expire relatively quickly and the large burden of proof on the plaintiff to get a preliminary injunction. Definitely worth reading.
Boasberg is a socialist before he is a partisan, and if anyone red Loomer’s report on his daughter you know all there is to know. How did he know this was even happening?
The Judge has a daughter named Katherine Boasberg, who works for a 501(c)(3) organization called Partners for Justice as a “capacity-building associate.” In her position, she helps coordinate and administer grant activities, ensure compliance, and support the delivery of capacity-building programs to strengthen nonprofit infrastructure.
Partners for Justice strongly opposes mass deportations and legislation targeting members of criminal gangs, and has been a vocal critic of the Laken Riley Act.
Loomer also uncovered a screenshot showing that Katherine’s employer, Emily Galvin-Almanza, tweeted an article about Judge Boasberg blocking Trump’s deportations of Venezuelan gang members. On top of this, Partners for Justice receives 76% of its funding from U.S. grants. This means taxpayers are funding this conflict of interest and pro-criminal activity.
In the "History often Rhymes" category, Judge Merchan's daughter just so happened to be aligned with causes against Trump. NY and DC are the last two places, among many contenders, where Trump can expect justice.
"Partners for Justice" - I have to hand it to these parasites. They're great at picking names for the orgs used to siphon money from taxpayers that are the inverse of what their name is. They probably had a good laugh at the name they chose. "We're bending over taxpayers so we can help illegals get away with actual murder" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Do you know what a TRO is? A temporary restraining order? Read the judge’s order. All he said is he is keeping things in the status quo. He didn’t say release the people back into the population. The government could still keep them in detention. He wanted a hearing where he would take evidence and review the law before he made a decision.
If the judge determined the government was wrong, the government could then appeal the decision to the court of appeals and probably get an emergency writ in the process, so there would be no delay. The Supreme Court could then hear the argument, again keeping things in the status quo.
There is absolutely no excuse for the government violating its constitutional duty to comply with court orders. Once that occurred, then we no longer have a democracy. It’s not a situation where you balance who’s right and who’s wrong politically and make a practical conclusion. The language President Trump used against a sitting federal judge is the language of an authoritarian or dictator. It is not the words of a President of the United States, who is sworn to uphold the constitution which exists to protect we the people, largely to protect us from an authoritarian government. This should be learned in high school civics.
You were doing well until your last paragraph. You said we “no longer have a democracy” if a court order is violated. That… has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of “democracy”. We should not obtusely use the word “democracy” to describe every aspect of society that we might want. It’s a specific term with a specific meaning, not a generic term for “good”.
Moreover, calling for the impeachment of a judge does not automagically make a person “authoritarian” or a “dictator”. Impeachment is a legal process; a part of our constitutional order. Or, as you might say, part of “our democracy”.
It’s called the separations of powers and it is in fact constitutional. You are right, you can call for impeachment of a judge without being authoritarian or dictator. However, if you’re calling for the impeachment of a judge because he’s issued a temporary restraining order, you are a dictator if you think you can get away with it. we’ll just have to see how strong this democracy is.
Erik Thueson, an attorney who has practiced Constitutional law.
You know what scares me? It is that rather than approaching these crucial issues with critical thinking skills, people are using their feelings and gut reactions, as shown by your ad hominem remark in your comment, Mr. Hawker. You advocate for the end of Constitutional due process because the government tells you these people are gang members and therefore the law need not be followed? You support attacking a judge like a six year old simply because he granted a TRO so the government will have to prove its position is legal? I cry for my country.
On the other hand, if you're calling for an impeachment because a judge made a ruling in order to help his daughter's career instead of recusing himself...?
We lost the Constitution on November 6,2024. Trump has already trashed the rule of law and WILL simply make himself dictator. This is what Taibbi wanted all along. Taibbi hates democracy and only demands freedom for rich white males exactly like himself.
What evidence is there about any of these alleged gang members? They are accused of being terrorists - on what basis? What unlawful actions were they taking in the US? and it seems obvious that many sent to this mega-prison weren't members of this gang. I acknowledge that you are "remotely bipartisan" in your acknowledgement that the judge might not be "wrong" in this case. I am all for more bipartisanship instead of the extreme direction that is happening with Trump constantly fueling the flames. I think the dems have gone off the rails, also, but Biden was deporting people who had committed crimes, but wasn't sending them to this hell hole of a prison without them being charged with, or even convicted of any crime. Invoking this statute in this manner is Orwellian. You claim "we all know" (a sneaky rhetorical device) that the Boasbergs of the world aren't remotely bipartisan" - on what basis do we "all" know this?
I don’t think Taibbi thinks what you are saying. His timeline demonstrates just the opposite. Moreover, we have not yet lost our Constitution. Justice Robert’s extraordinary comment was a judge, bound by the Constitution, warning President Trump why his reckless impeachment comment was so far off base. He shouldn’t have to. Every American President has to know this. So if we can hold the Courts and enough people refuse to tolerate unconstitutional exercises of power, we’ll be able to keep our country. Then, let’s take the country back from the oligarchs and I’ll guarantee you we will be happier and more tolerant of our neighbors.
Which oligarchs? Soros? Zuckerbucks? BlackRock? Goldman Sachs? All huge Dem facilitators. Epic fail trying to use the latest Dem talking point about "oligarchs". Pathetic.
I don't think I will set around waiting for you to make me happier! That sounds like a true dictator's statement. Typical lawyer statement. Like , you don't need the second amendment anymore ,I'll see to your well being.
I believe in the second amendment as much as due process. Before I was a typical lawyer, as you say, I was a Naval officer and a Maine Corp officer. I own a gun. But you bring me back to my point, rather than address the issue, you resort to threats and ad hominem attacks to anyone who disagrees with your gut reactions. Shame on you.
There were many periods during American history when aliens were deported for security purposes-- during the French Revolution, when the U.S. feared The Terror would be imported with its French proponents and people would begin losing their heads - we were not at war but we rightfully feared violence and contamination; during waves of communist and socialist immigration -- cut off. Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision, and a SCOTUS order not to imprison confederates.
Do you have any sources for your statement that French aliens were deported from US during the French Revolution due to their advocacy of revolutionary terror? I'd appreciate the info. Thanks in advance!
While I appreciate the detailed timeline, there is one key error in this report. No war is required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. It says in relevant part:
"invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies." An invasion or predatory incursion triggers the Act.
Actually, there’s more than one error in the timeline. The judges verbal orders differed from his written orders. There was another that came right to mind when reading but it’s lost in my head and I’m not rereading to find it.
Edit to add the other: Case law. Why does everyone always ignore case law? In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ludecke v. Watkins that the government had the authority to deport a legally admitted German resident under the Alien Enemy Act, even though World War II had ended.
There were periods during in American history when alien agitators were deported on the spot-- during the French Revolution, when the U.S. feared the terror would spread here and people would start losing their heads - we were NOT at war but we rightfully feared contamination; during waves of Communist and socialist immigration -- cut off. Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision and a SCOTUS order not to imprison confederates.
Maybe the time to get a clear definition of “war” was before the Korean not-a-war, the Vietnam not-a-war, or any of the various Middle East not-a-wars.
Boasberg 2002: Associate Judge in the District of Columbia superior court serving in the Civil and Criminal Division and the Domestic Violence branch
2011: Appointed to the court by Obama, unanimous Senate
2014: Appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice Roberts, presiding over it 2020 to May 2021.
2023: Chief Judge on the District Court
I don’t need to fit Trump’s political dates in here, they are obvious. However, I will add this, Boasberg presided over 70 J6 cases, both guilty pleas and conviction at trial. In nearly every instance, Boasberg imposed prison time even for the petty offense of ‘parading’ in the Capitol. He is also he one that used a bogus made-up charge that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court to get defendants to plead guilty.
Boasberg was ALREADY directly in the line of fire over at the new DOJ long before this breach - for letting alphabet agency miscreants walk - including the lawyer who took the fall for the real criminals. Had Kevin faced a lengthy sentence he might have squealed on the higher ups. Boasberg made sure Kevin didn't. The judge now needs to preemptively reconstruct himself as future victim of Trump retaliation, not career miscreant and swamp-creature himself, and chief lackey of the deep state. Now he's bringing Roberts in to cover for him. Boasberg is well-paid for his services via his wife's lucrative NGO contracts.
Boasberg roomed with Kavanaugh while both in law school at Yale. Boasberg was selected by Roberts to sit on the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a special court created in 1996. It consists of five Article III judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. Its job is to determine whether aliens (non-citizens) should be deported from the United States on the grounds that they are terrorists. He was there from 2020 to 2025.
He was also was appointed to oversee FISA court reforms following the irregularities and criminal offenses discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation report.
In January 2020 Boasberg selected former Justice Department official David S. Kris to oversee the reform of FBI procedures ordered by the court. Kris was in the Harvard Law class of 1991, Barack Obama’s graduating class, and was a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008. He was on the Obama transition team after the 2008 election, and from that position received his DOJ appointment in 2009. He is also best buddies with John Brennan.
There is a secret club of judges and the truth will eventually come out. They can’t suicide everyone.
What about Section 2? Section 2 sets forth the duty of the courts (following the public proclamation by the President that you've described in Section 1), "to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States" 50 U.S.C. § 23.
Your selective recitation of the executive's authority leaves out the checks and balances of the judiciary.
Generally speaking, I do not want the President (whoever it may be) to have the power to scoop people up and send them to a foreign prison without a hearing determining their status as Enemy Aliens. If that means that criminals get a hearing or a second hearing, so be it. Liberty!
To state the obvious, citizens of the US are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. How can people who are not US citizens and are in the US only because they have broken its laws and thereby spurned the Constitution [illegal aliens] claim any right to its protections?
I believe you are reading that incorrectly. I think it sets out the requirement of the courts to act in support of the President as set forth in Section 1. I do not believe section 2 represents a brake on the authority of the President.
The accused get a hearing before the court. If President Biden or Whoever had accused you of being an Enemy Alien wouldn’t you like to have a hearing before being sent to a foreign prison complex?
The point is not what I might "like". The point is the reading of the law. From section 2 you note, ""to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened". The act requires the participation of the courts and for that matter law enforcement in support of POTUS.
But your point is well taken. Certainly the judiciary has duties and is part in the process. But seriously, do you view the judiciary as a mere rubber stamp on executive power? The statute gives the accused the right to "a full examination and hearing."
And given the language of the statute, it appears that the President has only the power to make a public proclamation. It is up to the judiciary to take the next steps, apprehension, etc. It looks like President Trump seriously overstepped his bounds, even under the statute he has invoked.
Correct. Matt, who is not a lawyer and has never to my knowledge been consulted on matters of law in any jurisdiction begins with this astonishing and borderline dishonest claim "The Trump Administration has to make the case that its war on the Tren de Aragua gang is a real war"
I'm not a lawyer. Pam Bondi and others at the DOJ are. Stephen Miller demolished the press critics by confirming that Trump and his team had conferred with the DOJ to ensure that the deportations were a/legal & b/not subject to judicial review. Period.
A fingernail of investigation mixed with an electron of curiosity might have led Matt to ask: "Why did this particular judge decide to insert himself in this particular case, and why now?"
You are nitpicking. Matt regularly consults with lawyers. I never saw anywhere in the article where Matt wrote "I did not consult with a lawyer while writing this." What makes you presume that he did not?
And if he didn't; so what? I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, Matt's not a lawyer. And what if someone who is a lawyer delivers an opinion? It would be quite easy to find a different lawyer with a different opinion.
I'm questioning the absence of any such reference. Moreover, I'm not certain Matt did any/much of the background research for this piece.
Matt's problem is that he makes a claim that is not supported by fact, as numerous others have noted, choosing to address only one of three clearly-stated conditions for the the application of the act.
Compare sentences 1. and 2. so you'll understand.
1."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, AND c must be met."
2."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, OR, c must be met."
Do I have to explain the difference to you? I hope not. The act clearly states: " war, OR any invasion OR predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, OR threatened against the territory..." Now maybe Matt has really sound legal reasons for ignoring conditions "b' and 'c'. That's where expert legal opinion needs to be formally introduced into the discussion - Get it?
My regard for Matt remains undiminished. This piece simply isn't up to his usual standard. Sorry!
For those with more legal knowledge than myself, can affiliation with a gang be substituted for a foreign nation or government? What about the minority party of a foreign country?
As I read the statute Matt has provided, two things must happen before deportation and certainly before imprisonment:
1. Citizens of a foreign nation, which nation has declared war or has made some sort of invasion or excursion into the U.S., in case no declared war exists;
2. The deportation cannot take place unless there is first a judicial evidentiary hearing.
Here, Venezuela is not at war with us and is not, as a nation, making some sort of excursion into the U.S. and therefore the first requirement is not satisfied. The suspects might be violating US law, but not this law.
Second, the U S was deporting these aliens without the necessary judicial evidentiary hearing.
Thus, the Court issued an order that no deportation or imprisonment could occur without the necessary and legally required hearing thereon. It was the government clearly violating the law by flying these people to a foreign prison when the requirements of the statute had not been met. Every self-respecting law abiding judge in America—far right to far left —would be constitutionally bound to grant a TRO under these circumstances and would only be subject to impeachment if they went along with the government’s illegal actions.
No actual war needs to be ongoing but "an invasion or predatory incursion" must be being "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government". This is definitely NOT the case, so your argument (and Trump's) falls flat on its face.
Obviously, the war in Europe “ended” on VE Day in May of 1945 with the signing of various agreements by the parties, but the Declaration of War against Germany was not rescinded by Congress until 1952. I agree the Alien and Enemies Act of 1798 does not require a war, nor does it require that Congress declare a “War”. undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam are known as wars and would seem to satisfy the requirements within Section 1 of the Act.
Where was the ACLU when Americans are murdered by illegal aliens? Oh right, murder victim rights aren't as high up the woke ladder as illegal alien murderers rights.
The ACLU has been a joke for decades and the woke takeover makes them look even worse than previously thought possible.
2. Every gang banger will either stay low for a while or self deport. That prison video was not made for U.S. citizens but non-citizens without paperwork.
I briefly joined the ACLU when they promised to fight the "Patriot Act" 20+ years ago. The ACLU immediately focused on any efforts that were contrary to Communist and Socialist goals.
I gave up on the ACLU decades ago when they fought so hard to remove 'in God we trust' from the dollar bill. That's the cause they were going all out for. Pitiful!
“In a ready-to-go lawsuit—the New York Times reported the suit was filed before Trump’s proclamation was announced—the American Civil Liberties Union, which never lifted a finger for a single J6er tormented by the Biden Department of Justice, sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of five unnamed Venezuelan terrorists in federal custody and on the brink of being deported. (Another plaintiff, Democracy Forward, has dirty Democratic operative Mark Elias as chairman of its board.)”
I strongly disagree with your assessment. The US is in a war with Terrorism similar to that just before and after the attacks on 9-11. If the commander in chief has his hands tied by unelected activists, there is no hope for survival of this Country.
I have a tough time with the comparison to wartime.
Even in wartime, the number of (allegedly) adversarial people seeking to enter (or have been flown in with taxpayer dollars under a listless Biden regime) the country is immediately dwarfed by recent migration numbers.
People who illegally enter the country en masse, who have committed crimes, who bare in-group allegiance to foreign gangs, seems like a state change worth exploring when it comes to comparisons to wartime.
Of course, none of this would be in the Overton window but-for the open borders policy and advocacy of the Biden presidency (paired with partisan lawyers who encourage every illegal immigrant to fabricate stories to attain refugee/asylum status or at least claims that will take five years to adjudicate, which in the interim theyll give birth to US citizens and have a separate claim to remain in the country and take taxpayer dollars in magnitudes that have never been afforded to the generational impoverished communities in america)
Yes Jeff F. And what motivated Biden to go all in on his open Borders policy. Roberts Supreme Court for one - when they declared war on the definition of citizenship via the Census Ruling - TO INCLUDE ALL BODIES IN THE COUNT - thus drawing ZERO DISTINCTION between legal immigrants awaiting citizenship - and the millions more already here illegally. Why did he do this?
Because the states with high immigrant populations - CALIFORNIA - NEW YORK - ILLINOIS - had experienced massive citizen OUTMIGRATION - THUS JEPORDIZING THEIR CONGRESSIONAL COUNTS - California prior to that ruling was looking at upwards of 10 congressional districts at risk. Similar numbers in NY.
That problem was going to continue unless they went to massive migration policy.
Progressives went all in with open borders - just as they did when this coward refused to grant standing to Ken Paxton regarding the election in 2020. He always told anyone who would listen that he disagreed with Rehnquist regarding Bush V Gore.
Forget Impeachments; Conservatives need a national movement to remove Roberts from the Chief Justice slot - if not off the court entirely.
I am very skeptical of anything written by the Guardian. Douglas Murray just won a large lawsuit and was issued a public apology by their parent company.
Remember that fear mongering is their main mode of operation.
This whole thing makes my blood boil. If the judiciary put an ounce of effort in to protecting the American people from obvious invasion as they do in protecting foreigners we would be a better country, why didn’t a single judge question the Biden’s administration flagrant abuse of asylum when there is no evidence of genocide or war in South America?
It's very telling that so many of the same people vehemently objecting to this expulsion of illegal alien gangsters have never said a single word about the whereabouts of the 300,000+ children allowed into the country with no parental supervision by the previous administration.
Matt, I think you are awesome. But somebody has to do something about this scourge of gangs populated by illegal aliens. You could have 2 or 3 years of hearings or just actually do something about it. Trump is just doing something about it - not clutching his pearls to make sure these gang bangers have every right of appeal. If they think they have been wronged make sure the law provides that they can bring their appeal from their country of origin. I expect that the families that have had members killed by these gangs are on board because nothing else has seemed to work.
This is the El Salvador Argument, or alternatively the Zombie Apocalypse Argument.
Everybody knows that in zombie movies, the people who shoot first and ask questions later survive, while the timid folk who hesitate to kill a recently-turned loved one die horrifically. Audiences casually watch, declaring that so-and-so is "dead" and "stupid" the moment they recognize the trademark hesitation.
Similarly, El Salvador's gang problems were extraordinary before Bukele won election on a simple platform of "arrest them all". The gangsters all wear face tattoos, and Bukele put them in prison without trials. Before, people were starving in their homes because it was too unsafe to come out. Now the country flourishes and Bukele's approval has held at 95% for years.
Here's the thing: Bukele is a tyrant. He certainly is. He even laughs about it. He's the sort of tyrant that the public DEMANDS when conditions are allowed to become terrible. The same applies everywhere else; Americans will beg for a "tyrant" if the Left is allowed to do what it does for long enough to make one a preferable solution.
What I'd prefer is less extreme "pragmatism" to get the problems under control before worse becomes inevitable.
'Here's the thing: Bukele is a tyrant. He certainly is. He even laughs about it. He's the sort of tyrant that the public DEMANDS when conditions are allowed to become terrible. The same applies everywhere else; Americans will beg for a "tyrant" if the Left is allowed to do what it does for long enough to make one a preferable solution.'
What was Trumps election? Has he locked down the capital and called out 30k National Guard and put up barbed wire? The Biden Crime family was the most corrupt in American history by far - in so many ways.
The man you call tyrant has delivered his country from hell. He will wear a target AS LONG AS HE BREATHS. HALF OF MEXICO'S RESIDENTS ARE GREEN WITH ENVY for how El Salvadorans can live free and prosper. Ditto throughout South and Central America.
I don't believe you understand what time it is. November was an eleventh-hour reprieve. So too are the upcoming congressional elections. Two years to cripple or destroy the Democrat Party. Hold majorities through at least 2032 to restore this country.
Otherwise, we all will be living through a version of California.
Alan Dershowitz says he does not understand why the Government used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, when the President has ample authority under the Constitution to deport any alien here on a visa (green card holders may be more complicated) that he deems a threat. Dersh says the Alien Enemies Act is a distraction and weakens the Government case by bogging it down in legal interpretations, when the President's Constitutional power is clear and not contravened by any statute of which he is aware. He further predicts the Government will wake up to this and it will be reflected in their further pleadings.
I disagree. I believe he used it because he wants the public talking about what we are talking about right now - War vs policing action. We have been trying various forms of 'policing actions' for years from W Bush thru Obummer- all before the Democrats opened our borders just as Merkle and the Germans led the EU to do after 2015.
Nobody has understood the importance of public opinion to provide political Capital like Trump since FDR. Not even Reagan. He knows exactly what he is doing.
It seems to me, that even though Trump won a mandate victory, he’s being fought in every order. Over 100 injunctions filed to date. Does he have presidential powers. We had a puppet in “control” for four years that didn’t even know what he was doing and this new president has no rights to try and correct the wrongs put into place by God knows who. Its head scratching
There is a lot of commentary that the judges are pushing these suits to “throw sand into the gears of government “ however I suspect the current administration is doing the reverse. Trump was already deporting criminals by the tens of thousands.
They are doing this because it is exposing activist judges, one after the other.
So, any District Judge can decide and order whatever they want of the Administration. Can they exercise similar power over the Congress. Maybe we can get one who declares the Income Tax null and void. What power do they not believe that they have? The immigration laws are on the books although the Democrats never recognized them. Follow the real law, not the liberal judges law.
Deporting people who have illegally crossed the border into the United States is not an issue subject to judicial review. The law is clear. The only reasonable question that can be asked in this situation is - if they are a foreign national, are they here legally? Thus, if they can not present a visa or green card, they are de facto, here illegally and can be deported.
The next question - where can they be deported to? In this case, Venezuela would be the obvious choice, but since the non-dementia inflicted Venezuelan government emptied their prisons of their most violent and depraved criminals, taking advantage of the "Biden Welcomes the World" open borders program, it's not surprising they don't want these homicidal maniacs back in their country. They effectively transferred their deadly problem to the United States and they aren't going to let the US transfer that problem back to them. To the Venezuelans, borders mean something.
So, again, the question is, where can they be deported to? An uninhabited South Seas island? Devil's Island? Chateau d'If? Australia? Ice Station Zebra? How about El Salvador? It seems that if the Salvadorans are willing to welcome our former newcomers, we should be grateful. And if El Salvador chooses to incarcerate our tariff-free exports, that's their business.
Agree. Just get them fucking somewhere else and OUT of the United States. no one cares what one leftist federal judge thinks about this. We want these scumbags gone and fast. Like yesterday.
I said I am a US citizen and not a member of a violent gang. Therefore, I am not a criminal who should obviously be deported. I may still be a scumbag, that's fair. My point is only that if you are in the US illegally and also a member of a violent gang, that's 100% scumbag material.
And, the point I am making is that US immigration laws are arbitrary and pernicious. The nation is a concept created in the 1800s to control us. Like the notion of ethnicities or peoples before it, it only ever makes sense from the perspective of a government trying to accomplish specific goals. The nation itself is not a goal but a means to a goal. In our case, the concept of the nation is used by corporate elites to divide us from other people with whom we should feel solidarity. The refugees -- both economic and political -- from Latin America who flee the US policies that impoverish them and endanger their lives are just like the US citizens who suffer from similar policies. We should band together with them to control the corporate elites who use our precarity to drive down wages. Instead, the fatuous right wing imagines they share more in common with corporate elites because of skin color than they do with the others who suffer under the boots of the corporate elite. Trump might have a beer with you for show, but he wouldn't play golf with you.
This is more of a side note: The timeline itself is not an operational timeline and certainly does not include the routing of communications for any actions to terminate or adjust flights. In other words, a DOJ lawyer is not in the direct operational chain to control flights likely carried out by DOS or DOD contractors, or perhaps by DOD aircraft. Think about the chain of calls that need to be made and further consider unknowns such as who to call and at what number -- all of that communications routing is not instantaneous!
So, consider a DOJ lawyer in a hearing with a judge, being issued some oral request and not having immediate information as to which gang member is on what flight, likely not having specific insights into the pending or occurring flights, etc. Who do they call and when? Do they take out their cell proceeding to call after each oral statement by a judge? Is a statement by a district judge enough to begin the process for an operational order that sets off a chain of events across multiple government agencies. When is an order formalized?
Also, consider the time it takes to load a plane until actual take off; then, consider scanning and biometric recordings of who is boarding. The prisoner passengers were likely restrained...and onboarding may have started hours before liftoff. I might go on and on, but the real operational timeline is not so simple.
Assuming that even deep state operatives are aware of the more realistic operational action timeline, is it possible that they figured they could confuse the public with simple date/time stamps, making it appear orders were not acted on, and thus set the stage for a future impeachment that they see predicated on not following a judicial order, even if the order is not formalized nor even legal? Just guessing.
Other than more simple efforts at the last minute to stop or delay an execution, complex orders or injunctions do not give the judiciary power for immediate and direct operational control of the executive department. Again, there may be better legal terminology to express this, but these district judges suffer from overreach at the very least.
John Roberts should understand this. His nuanced positioning on the recent rulings seems to indicate he is not serving the Constitution first. Who is his master then?
I think we can all remember the timeline on January 6. Having to navigate the protocols etc to get the national guard in place. By the time they arrived it was over. Welcome to the US Government and in this case yahoo
The tiimeline goes back a bit further. Here is what the Supreme Court said about it in 1952 -
The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.
Thank you for this complete timeline. I want the gang members gone and we have built many legal boxing rings around the country to make sure the lawyers can fight it out. Meanwhile the bad guys are locked up and going nowhere. What I don't understand is why the ACLU wants to engage on the side of the gangs.
There's plenty of wrong to go around on this one.
The root cause is, of course, the massive negligence of Democrats over many years that allowed border issues to grow so severe and unmanageable. Law and order break down under such conditions, forcing harsh pragmatisms of the sort now occurring in El Salvador. Not that the Martha's Vineyard set experiences the problems.
We all know by this point that the Boasbergs of the world aren't remotely bipartisan in their rushes to intervene in law enforcement. That doesn't mean he's wrong in this case, though, particularly if it were to happen that some of the people on those planes don't belong on them. But credibility is damaged. As for Trump, he rightly realizes that he'll be tied up forever if he acquiesces to every bit of lawfare against him (and he's experienced enough lawfare to know), but he also needs to pick his battles.
Talking about impeachment is smart on Trump's part and stupid on John Roberts' part. Nothing will come of it because of the 2/3 vote requirement, so it's just bluster of the sort that calls attention to the two sides' positions here, which is a political winner for Trump. Roberts, meanwhile, is still doing what he's been doing since he declared the ObamaCare mandate unconstitutional and let it live anyway - politicizing the courts in the name of "protecting" them. From his position, he's the last person who should make such a comment, and he knows it.
Another issue on the Democrat side that makes this worse is their constant crying “wolf” every time Trump has breathed since 2015, making it difficult for the general public to discern what’s a serious norm-breaking action (here invoking the Alien Enemies Act in peacetime against people whom the government is not required to prove are actually Alien Enemies), versus just a Trumpy exercise of executive powers as they have been defined under other administrations.
Congratulations, Democrats. All but your hardcore partisans have tuned you out on the constant whining about “threats to democracy”, which ironically has made it more difficult to mobilize the public around something which may actually be a threat. I say this with no sympathy for Boasberg, and agree with JD Free’s critique of judicial activism, too.
I think Trump may be relying on the part that follows immediately after the mention of a "declared war," where it says: "...or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies."
I've heard claim that the Venezuelan president used the opportunity of Biden's open border to empty his prisons and send the worst of his worst into the U.S. as payback to Biden for earlier sanctions. If that's true, it can reasonably be said the flood of Venezuelan gang members into America at their president's behest constitutes a "predatory incursion" perpetrated/attempted by a foreign government.
Well argued, and there’s a case to be made for it. My point is that its application to the predatory incursion aspect of the law is new, and requires us to trust the executive when it takes domestic law enforcement action on a national security issue in a way that is not justiciable (i.e., subject to judicial oversight). Strip away the identity of the president and the alien enemies and present that situation in the abstract, and you see how it poses risks.
And I’m on the record here arguing in defense (at least conditionally) of the Mahmoud Khalil detention, which has precedent and is justiciable. But to my point the left lost their minds over that case and now can’t make a helpful messaging distinction between it and this one which actually could pose some serious constitutional issues.
What are you talking about? 'Predatory incursion' was written in 1798. The fact that it hasn't invoked as justification for applying the Alien Enemies Act is irrelevant. If you argue otherwise, you are in effect stating that a law cannot be applied as written unless it was previously applied. So stupid.
As to your point about [____________] requiring us to 'trust the executive' ...you conveniently left out the entity doing the requiring. Really, what are you saying here? You can't be so fatuous as to claim the law requires us to trust the executive. So what then? Who or what, exactly, requires that we trust the guy we ALREADY entrusted when we gave him our vote? I mean, you know how this works right? We trust our elected official with our votes BEFORE they take office and take action. We don't put them in office and then say, "Whoa big fella. We have to see if we trust you first."
This is all such nonsense. The Judge ordered the plane turned around because he's a partisan hack. Stop pretending otherwise. And stop pretending that it's an open question with our Constitution as to whether our President is powerless to deal with illegal immigrant criminals (redundant, I know) whom nary a single citizen wants as a neighbor.
Oh man, here we go. Just a week ago I was arguing in defense of the administration’s detention of Mahmoud Khalil (or at least attempting to explain why it was possibly justified) to some emotional leftist partisans. Let me try to explain why I see this case differently again. (And, by the way, it’s possible to simultaneously believe, as I do, that Boasberg is a partisan hack AND that the administration is taking a big leap. Nothing prevents those two things from being true together — that was JD Free’s original point).
A declared international war, in which this act has previously been applied, is a very high, clearly interpretable bar for which to invoke domestic executive law enforcement powers that are not reviewable by courts. So, if we are at declared war with Japan, an admin can use the act to take swift and decisive action against Japanese nationals in the country who could be spies, saboteurs, etc. Hence how this was applied in WWII (and I’m graciously overlooking all the other concerns about the use of this in wartime and assuming it’s not executive overreach).
Once we step into the predatory incursion side of it, there is necessarily some interpretation of what that means by an administration, unlike the clear standard of a declared international war. Administrations interpret the meaning of laws all the time. Fine. But here, no court has the ability to rule whether their interpretation of the law is constitutional (or even remotely logically sensible).
To illustrate, you may be persuaded by the Tren de Aragua reasoning for a predatory incursion by Venezuela. But it requires you to trust the administration’s story because no court can verify it by demanding the production of evidence. What if, in 2032, President Ocasio-Cortez declares that we are victims of a predatory incursion by a Zionist conspiracy headed by Israeli Prime Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir? Does this Trump precedent allow future President Ocasio-Cortez to mass deport Israeli citizens? No court could intervene. That’s the trust (ie ability to use force unilaterally on our own soil) we are giving the executive here.
I am sympathetic to your cautionary approach. But you are arguing a slippery slope that is pretty easy to define and avoid.
If your proposed Zionists arrived inside our borders and began threatening American citizens with bodily harm and death, raping and trafficking children and women, taking over apartment buildings and extorting rent and otherwise threatening the health and well-being of citizens inside our borders, then absolutely we could call it a predatory incursion and deport them. The word "predatory" is carrying the load here, and violence and crime against citizens by non-citizens who entered the country illegally is a PERFECT justification for deportation.
Your slippery slope argument would be more compelling if the TdA were here minding their own business and trying to contribute to our society. But they manifestly are not. They are vicious gang members who are here to spread their crime network. We don't need a court to give the president, who heads the single branch of our federal government invested with securing our borders and enforcing our laws, permission to round them up and remove them from our country. It is an obvious response to a problem that should never have been allowed to happen.
Lots of typical fence setters posting here. And not just you flyover.
Think of it like being on a jury. There’s a legal case being made, and you’re watching both sides present their arguments and evidence. Rather than prejudging, you’re laying out to yourself under what conditions (I.e., consistency with your deeply held principles) you might vote to convict or acquit (support or oppose) as the process plays out.
It’s that kind of mindset that I think Matt also has that made me respect him so much. It’s also the kind of mindset that allows someone to migrate between parties or political movements based on the particular issue (also an admirable characteristic of Matt that has endeared him at various points in his career to all parts of the political spectrum, except neocons I guess).
I take your point. These are muddy times indeed.
Yes, this case definitely poses some serious Constitutional issues... and Trump's DoJ is clearly on the wrong side of the law in this case, as he was in the Khalil case and for similar reasons IMHO.
Can you cite even one US Supreme Court decision that backs up your reading of what "predatory incursion" of or by a foreign government means? If not, your argument has no basis in US federal law as of today.
I believe Dan Duncan was replying to this comment but misplaced it. So I'll just quote him here, since he said pretty much what I would:
"What are you talking about? 'Predatory incursion' was written in 1798. The fact that it hasn't invoked as justification for applying the Alien Enemies Act is irrelevant. If you argue otherwise, you are in effect stating that a law cannot be applied as written unless it was previously applied."
Supreme Court decisions matter. There is no precedent for Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act *since 1798* (nearly a hundred years, daylight savings) for a host of reasons. The odds of Trump scoring a new landmark Supreme Court decision in his favor in this case are very low imo.
Excellent point that few are talking about as far as I know.
Very few are listening to the Democrats anymore because they complain about everything and call everything illegal and unfair, etc. It’s the classic boy who cried wolf scenario. If they offered constructive alternatives and got loud only on a few things, they might fare better in the court of public opinion. I’m not in a hurry for them to learn this but it does make me wonder what outcome they’re looking for?
You mean the party of slavery, jim crow, kkk, tammany hall, boss tweed, the civil war, both world wars, korea, vietnam, george wallace dixiecrats, welfare fraud, medicare fraud, election fraud, stolen elections, actblue and usaid and illegal immigration and lawfare and social security fraud and castration and sterilization and organized political violence? That party?
I think the public is currently more horrified at the wave of life-threatening swatting actions against center right-leaning pundits and bloggers, and the Dem’s not so hidden glee at Tesla showrooms and charging facilities being fire bombed, as well as innocent Tesla owners’ autos being defaced for the crime of owning a well made American electric car that’s good for the environment.
the Democrats are masters of illegal practices. It's simple if they think they will consider the Republicans are doing it......that's what they would do.
I want to be safe and I’m not rich, please keep those planes flying!
One day they will come for you too. Read and learn!
Seriously? They will come for you if you’re an illegal alien who commits crime in this country. This is not a slippery slope, this is the government finally doing what it is supposed to do. Give me a break with your shrill overreaction.
Read: The Guardian (Spotlight) 19th
Entitled: "I was the Canadian who was detained by US Immigration."
The get back to me!
I don’t have to read the article because I’m also a Canadian who was once detained by US Immigration and I think that you’re a fool.
Years ago my parents were detained entering Canada on their way to a fishing trip. They had booze that was confiscated by the border patrol. The patrol did not pour it out on the ground. My folks always wondered what happened to that booze.
The Guardian? 😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣. They signed the Trusted News Initiative to make sure all our MSM is on the same lying page. No better than bird cage poop collection.
I have NO time for the Guardian either BUT this article was sent to me
Okay, I just read The Guardian article. That poor lady appears not to be a gang member, the people we’re discussing here. United States and Canada Customs are not coming for me.
I read that one as she was hawking a product and apparently had an expired Visa.
Hey, Jenny. Be careful in the comments sections at Racket. There’s been a large influx of brainless loyalists. They aren’t the majority though. Just the loudest.
Yes thank you I have seen this; it would be entertaining if it wasn't so sick.
Well we , majority of the US Citizens, do not want you in the USA. Visit OK but we don't need more welfare Queans . And yes it is spelled with an A . Look it up .
I am not in the USA. No wish to visit either!
jenny is the typical democrap! The likes of her/him they/them are either to stupid to realize the majority are waking up to the true dem.s agenda. And that is not looking out for the Citizens of the USA.
Jenny Stokes: They being who? Immigration/Customs or Homeland Security?
Gang members are already in residence and have been seen out dining at a local Italian place in a nearby town. If you know any corrections officers, local law enforcement or Homeland Security employees, ask them about what keeps them awake at night. Heck, ask people who encounter the public, like hospital workers, waitresses, convenience store employees, etc. (And I live in a Republican part of New York State.)
Jenny does her moralizing safely ensconced in Provence, an ocean away from any possible threat from the homicidal psychopathic gang members being deported.
They are generously getting more due process in their legal deportation from the US than they deserve, given that they deliberately evaded the requirements for legal entry into the country in the first place.
If Jenny can't comprehend that, then she is not too bright, or is being deliberately mendacious, or probably both.
Agreed. Sending these people back -- even if flawed -- is way closer to the spirit of the law than allowing four decades of illegal aliens (post '86 amnesty) to flood across the border.
And again, we're in a state of affairs where it could well be that some of those on the plane don't belong on it, and Trump is flouting the rulings in creative ways that we wouldn't accept if a Democrat did it.
But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't thanks to Democrats allowing the problem to grow so much.
It seems to me that the only way possible for some one on the plane to not "belong on it" would be if they are a citizen or permanent resident of the United States.
Unfortunately I think we have to hope that it will be discovered and corrected if that actually happened, which I doubt on this particular flight since it was the first one to this prison. I have a feeling that agencies very carefully picked each man who was on that flight. Of course I may be mistaken but in this situation, I don’t think so.
"But we're damned if we do and damned if we don't ..." Can't agree. Trust in Trump. Period. Just like Georgia and NYC - this DC circuit (& many others to follow now that Roberts - and Amy Coney SOUTER - has encouraged it) will continue said 'resistance' lawfare - and Trump will find any existing statute to hang his policy on.
And why not? Should the Democrats win the house (let alone the Senate) in the midterms they already have articles of Impeachment drawn. This has zippo to do with clarifying if this particular law only applies in times of declared war.
The ACLU - the Lawfare deans Elias - Andrew Weissman - & Norm Eisen - with enormous resources ($$$) will do the Democrats bidding.
This is great POLITICS. Trump is winning and these buffoons will destroy the Dems opportunity for congressional gains. The public will decide this come Nov '26 - just as they did in '24. Everything 'judicial' is moot beyond the same performative theater we saw in trying to jail and bankrupt Trump before he ran and won.
What is really important is how Nayib Bukele has shown the way to fight a real covert war with the Cartels. Mike Lee has talked OPENLY about the executive authority to contract with mercenaries (arguably already done in our middle eastern wars) to cripple if not eliminate these criminal organizations. Eric Prince likewise.
This is but the opening salvo. Trump is a different 'animal' in the White House when it comes to designating an organization terrorist. Trump intends to reimpose the Monroe Doctrine - and - put a bounty on the head of every criminal cartel member - here or anywhere in the Northern Hemisphere.
A hallmark bonus in a Golden Era.
From today's substack by Julie Kelly:
“In a ready-to-go lawsuit—the New York Times reported the suit was filed before Trump’s proclamation was announced—the American Civil Liberties Union, which never lifted a finger for a single J6er tormented by the Biden Department of Justice, sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of five unnamed Venezuelan terrorists in federal custody and on the brink of being deported. (Another plaintiff, Democracy Forward, has dirty Democratic operative Mark Elias as chairman of its board.)”
https://open.substack.com/pub/juliekelly/p/mortimer-boasbergs-contempt-trap?r=b84py&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
The ACLU was absolutely fine with vaccine mandates and people losing their jobs over that
If Elias is involved or Weissman then I have zero sympathy for this. They are the absolute sleaze representing the democrats. That party would go well to rid themselves of these two scumbags
Well, they are involved, so your decision is easy.
They can file all the TROs they want. They’re merely a delay tactic because a hearing date must be set for a date in the not too distant future where they try to argue for a preliminary injunction for which the bar is set much higher and their chances of getting one are very slim in many cases. Notice that many of the TROs never go anywhere after. Jeff Childers in Coffee and COVID did an excellent newsletter a couple of weeks ago(?) about how these orders work and the ease of obtaining TROs but that they expire relatively quickly and the large burden of proof on the plaintiff to get a preliminary injunction. Definitely worth reading.
I’m all for deporting gang banger criminals. Good riddance & piss off.
However, I do have a concern that some of the deportees were dolphins caught in the tuna net. Law of Averages, there’s gotta be a few.
The Administration could easily neutralize this concern by publishing a list of the deportees and their “qualifications” under Alien Enemies.
Maybe the list will be published at some point…
Boasberg is a socialist before he is a partisan, and if anyone red Loomer’s report on his daughter you know all there is to know. How did he know this was even happening?
The Judge has a daughter named Katherine Boasberg, who works for a 501(c)(3) organization called Partners for Justice as a “capacity-building associate.” In her position, she helps coordinate and administer grant activities, ensure compliance, and support the delivery of capacity-building programs to strengthen nonprofit infrastructure.
Partners for Justice strongly opposes mass deportations and legislation targeting members of criminal gangs, and has been a vocal critic of the Laken Riley Act.
Loomer also uncovered a screenshot showing that Katherine’s employer, Emily Galvin-Almanza, tweeted an article about Judge Boasberg blocking Trump’s deportations of Venezuelan gang members. On top of this, Partners for Justice receives 76% of its funding from U.S. grants. This means taxpayers are funding this conflict of interest and pro-criminal activity.
In the "History often Rhymes" category, Judge Merchan's daughter just so happened to be aligned with causes against Trump. NY and DC are the last two places, among many contenders, where Trump can expect justice.
"Partners for Justice" - I have to hand it to these parasites. They're great at picking names for the orgs used to siphon money from taxpayers that are the inverse of what their name is. They probably had a good laugh at the name they chose. "We're bending over taxpayers so we can help illegals get away with actual murder" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
Wow- thanks for the info. Explains a lot-
Do you know what a TRO is? A temporary restraining order? Read the judge’s order. All he said is he is keeping things in the status quo. He didn’t say release the people back into the population. The government could still keep them in detention. He wanted a hearing where he would take evidence and review the law before he made a decision.
If the judge determined the government was wrong, the government could then appeal the decision to the court of appeals and probably get an emergency writ in the process, so there would be no delay. The Supreme Court could then hear the argument, again keeping things in the status quo.
There is absolutely no excuse for the government violating its constitutional duty to comply with court orders. Once that occurred, then we no longer have a democracy. It’s not a situation where you balance who’s right and who’s wrong politically and make a practical conclusion. The language President Trump used against a sitting federal judge is the language of an authoritarian or dictator. It is not the words of a President of the United States, who is sworn to uphold the constitution which exists to protect we the people, largely to protect us from an authoritarian government. This should be learned in high school civics.
You were doing well until your last paragraph. You said we “no longer have a democracy” if a court order is violated. That… has nothing whatsoever to do with the definition of “democracy”. We should not obtusely use the word “democracy” to describe every aspect of society that we might want. It’s a specific term with a specific meaning, not a generic term for “good”.
Moreover, calling for the impeachment of a judge does not automagically make a person “authoritarian” or a “dictator”. Impeachment is a legal process; a part of our constitutional order. Or, as you might say, part of “our democracy”.
It’s called the separations of powers and it is in fact constitutional. You are right, you can call for impeachment of a judge without being authoritarian or dictator. However, if you’re calling for the impeachment of a judge because he’s issued a temporary restraining order, you are a dictator if you think you can get away with it. we’ll just have to see how strong this democracy is.
Erik Thueson, an attorney who has practiced Constitutional law.
LOL 😂 ! Well you seem to need more practice in order to get it right.
You know what scares me? It is that rather than approaching these crucial issues with critical thinking skills, people are using their feelings and gut reactions, as shown by your ad hominem remark in your comment, Mr. Hawker. You advocate for the end of Constitutional due process because the government tells you these people are gang members and therefore the law need not be followed? You support attacking a judge like a six year old simply because he granted a TRO so the government will have to prove its position is legal? I cry for my country.
They're Trumpers. They cannot have critical thinking skills because their universe revolves around the divine appointment of their messiah, Trump.
Give me some examples of the critical thinking that you used during some of Mr. Biden's actions. Then I'll listen.
On the other hand, if you're calling for an impeachment because a judge made a ruling in order to help his daughter's career instead of recusing himself...?
We lost the Constitution on November 6,2024. Trump has already trashed the rule of law and WILL simply make himself dictator. This is what Taibbi wanted all along. Taibbi hates democracy and only demands freedom for rich white males exactly like himself.
OMG, you are simply hilarious. Is Karen your real name?🤪
What evidence is there about any of these alleged gang members? They are accused of being terrorists - on what basis? What unlawful actions were they taking in the US? and it seems obvious that many sent to this mega-prison weren't members of this gang. I acknowledge that you are "remotely bipartisan" in your acknowledgement that the judge might not be "wrong" in this case. I am all for more bipartisanship instead of the extreme direction that is happening with Trump constantly fueling the flames. I think the dems have gone off the rails, also, but Biden was deporting people who had committed crimes, but wasn't sending them to this hell hole of a prison without them being charged with, or even convicted of any crime. Invoking this statute in this manner is Orwellian. You claim "we all know" (a sneaky rhetorical device) that the Boasbergs of the world aren't remotely bipartisan" - on what basis do we "all" know this?
I’m afraid you and I think alike.
I don’t think Taibbi thinks what you are saying. His timeline demonstrates just the opposite. Moreover, we have not yet lost our Constitution. Justice Robert’s extraordinary comment was a judge, bound by the Constitution, warning President Trump why his reckless impeachment comment was so far off base. He shouldn’t have to. Every American President has to know this. So if we can hold the Courts and enough people refuse to tolerate unconstitutional exercises of power, we’ll be able to keep our country. Then, let’s take the country back from the oligarchs and I’ll guarantee you we will be happier and more tolerant of our neighbors.
Which oligarchs? Soros? Zuckerbucks? BlackRock? Goldman Sachs? All huge Dem facilitators. Epic fail trying to use the latest Dem talking point about "oligarchs". Pathetic.
I don't think I will set around waiting for you to make me happier! That sounds like a true dictator's statement. Typical lawyer statement. Like , you don't need the second amendment anymore ,I'll see to your well being.
I believe in the second amendment as much as due process. Before I was a typical lawyer, as you say, I was a Naval officer and a Maine Corp officer. I own a gun. But you bring me back to my point, rather than address the issue, you resort to threats and ad hominem attacks to anyone who disagrees with your gut reactions. Shame on you.
"But credibility is damaged." No question about it. And trust has been trashed. It's difficult to see how it will be recovered.
Dear JFB,
I’m not sure which one of my multiple comments you are responding to, but whatever when it is, I agree with your comments.
Where is your proof?
There were many periods during American history when aliens were deported for security purposes-- during the French Revolution, when the U.S. feared The Terror would be imported with its French proponents and people would begin losing their heads - we were not at war but we rightfully feared violence and contamination; during waves of communist and socialist immigration -- cut off. Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision, and a SCOTUS order not to imprison confederates.
Do you have any sources for your statement that French aliens were deported from US during the French Revolution due to their advocacy of revolutionary terror? I'd appreciate the info. Thanks in advance!
While I appreciate the detailed timeline, there is one key error in this report. No war is required to invoke the Alien Enemies Act. It says in relevant part:
"invasion or predatory incursion is perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President makes public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward, who shall be within the United States and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as alien enemies." An invasion or predatory incursion triggers the Act.
Actually, there’s more than one error in the timeline. The judges verbal orders differed from his written orders. There was another that came right to mind when reading but it’s lost in my head and I’m not rereading to find it.
Edit to add the other: Case law. Why does everyone always ignore case law? In 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ludecke v. Watkins that the government had the authority to deport a legally admitted German resident under the Alien Enemy Act, even though World War II had ended.
I think the judge saying versus signing is really important, even if he does not. Which just goes to prove what an imprecise douche he is.
There were periods during in American history when alien agitators were deported on the spot-- during the French Revolution, when the U.S. feared the terror would spread here and people would start losing their heads - we were NOT at war but we rightfully feared contamination; during waves of Communist and socialist immigration -- cut off. Lincoln defied the Dred Scott decision and a SCOTUS order not to imprison confederates.
Ludecke v Watkins is one of the scariest decisions that I’ve ever read. It needs to be forgotten.
Maybe the time to get a clear definition of “war” was before the Korean not-a-war, the Vietnam not-a-war, or any of the various Middle East not-a-wars.
I must extend this time line to add context.
Boasberg 2002: Associate Judge in the District of Columbia superior court serving in the Civil and Criminal Division and the Domestic Violence branch
2011: Appointed to the court by Obama, unanimous Senate
2014: Appointed to the FISA court by Chief Justice Roberts, presiding over it 2020 to May 2021.
2023: Chief Judge on the District Court
I don’t need to fit Trump’s political dates in here, they are obvious. However, I will add this, Boasberg presided over 70 J6 cases, both guilty pleas and conviction at trial. In nearly every instance, Boasberg imposed prison time even for the petty offense of ‘parading’ in the Capitol. He is also he one that used a bogus made-up charge that was eventually overturned by the Supreme Court to get defendants to plead guilty.
Boasberg was ALREADY directly in the line of fire over at the new DOJ long before this breach - for letting alphabet agency miscreants walk - including the lawyer who took the fall for the real criminals. Had Kevin faced a lengthy sentence he might have squealed on the higher ups. Boasberg made sure Kevin didn't. The judge now needs to preemptively reconstruct himself as future victim of Trump retaliation, not career miscreant and swamp-creature himself, and chief lackey of the deep state. Now he's bringing Roberts in to cover for him. Boasberg is well-paid for his services via his wife's lucrative NGO contracts.
https://nypost.com/2025/03/18/us-news/judge-blocking-trump-deportation-flights-gave-slap-on-wrist-to-fbi-lawyer-in-russiagate/
Boasberg roomed with Kavanaugh while both in law school at Yale. Boasberg was selected by Roberts to sit on the United States Alien Terrorist Removal Court, a special court created in 1996. It consists of five Article III judges, selected by the Chief Justice of the United States. Its job is to determine whether aliens (non-citizens) should be deported from the United States on the grounds that they are terrorists. He was there from 2020 to 2025.
He was also was appointed to oversee FISA court reforms following the irregularities and criminal offenses discovered by DOJ Inspector General Michael E. Horowitz in his Crossfire Hurricane investigation report.
In January 2020 Boasberg selected former Justice Department official David S. Kris to oversee the reform of FBI procedures ordered by the court. Kris was in the Harvard Law class of 1991, Barack Obama’s graduating class, and was a national security adviser to Hillary Clinton’s campaign in 2008. He was on the Obama transition team after the 2008 election, and from that position received his DOJ appointment in 2009. He is also best buddies with John Brennan.
There is a secret club of judges and the truth will eventually come out. They can’t suicide everyone.
https://x.com/pepesgrandma/status/1902750686145810716
What about Section 2? Section 2 sets forth the duty of the courts (following the public proclamation by the President that you've described in Section 1), "to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States" 50 U.S.C. § 23.
Your selective recitation of the executive's authority leaves out the checks and balances of the judiciary.
We know that those on the plane in TX already were duly apprehended and convened for removal. They had their court day.
Did they? The language in the statute appears to require a court hearing after the President's public proclamation.
Are you saying that you want them to get two hearings or do we all understand that the intent was for those pinched after the the proclamation?
Generally speaking, I do not want the President (whoever it may be) to have the power to scoop people up and send them to a foreign prison without a hearing determining their status as Enemy Aliens. If that means that criminals get a hearing or a second hearing, so be it. Liberty!
To state the obvious, citizens of the US are entitled to the protections of the US Constitution. How can people who are not US citizens and are in the US only because they have broken its laws and thereby spurned the Constitution [illegal aliens] claim any right to its protections?
What statutes are you talking about, the one that says they get a day in court?
Excellent point
I believe you are reading that incorrectly. I think it sets out the requirement of the courts to act in support of the President as set forth in Section 1. I do not believe section 2 represents a brake on the authority of the President.
The accused get a hearing before the court. If President Biden or Whoever had accused you of being an Enemy Alien wouldn’t you like to have a hearing before being sent to a foreign prison complex?
The point is not what I might "like". The point is the reading of the law. From section 2 you note, ""to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened". The act requires the participation of the courts and for that matter law enforcement in support of POTUS.
I for one like having my liberty.
But your point is well taken. Certainly the judiciary has duties and is part in the process. But seriously, do you view the judiciary as a mere rubber stamp on executive power? The statute gives the accused the right to "a full examination and hearing."
And given the language of the statute, it appears that the President has only the power to make a public proclamation. It is up to the judiciary to take the next steps, apprehension, etc. It looks like President Trump seriously overstepped his bounds, even under the statute he has invoked.
They already had their day in court
Correct. Matt, who is not a lawyer and has never to my knowledge been consulted on matters of law in any jurisdiction begins with this astonishing and borderline dishonest claim "The Trump Administration has to make the case that its war on the Tren de Aragua gang is a real war"
I'm not a lawyer. Pam Bondi and others at the DOJ are. Stephen Miller demolished the press critics by confirming that Trump and his team had conferred with the DOJ to ensure that the deportations were a/legal & b/not subject to judicial review. Period.
A fingernail of investigation mixed with an electron of curiosity might have led Matt to ask: "Why did this particular judge decide to insert himself in this particular case, and why now?"
That's the story and that's the question.
Just to be antagonistic, multiple times on America This Week, Matt has talked about working with different lawyers to help dig through a case.
Exactly as we’d expect when Matt or any journalist prepares well. And yet, Matt makes no such claim in this article about about a rarely used law.
Strange, huh?
You are nitpicking. Matt regularly consults with lawyers. I never saw anywhere in the article where Matt wrote "I did not consult with a lawyer while writing this." What makes you presume that he did not?
And if he didn't; so what? I'm not a lawyer, you're not a lawyer, Matt's not a lawyer. And what if someone who is a lawyer delivers an opinion? It would be quite easy to find a different lawyer with a different opinion.
I'm questioning the absence of any such reference. Moreover, I'm not certain Matt did any/much of the background research for this piece.
Matt's problem is that he makes a claim that is not supported by fact, as numerous others have noted, choosing to address only one of three clearly-stated conditions for the the application of the act.
Compare sentences 1. and 2. so you'll understand.
1."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, AND c must be met."
2."To apply the act, conditions: a, b, OR, c must be met."
Do I have to explain the difference to you? I hope not. The act clearly states: " war, OR any invasion OR predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, OR threatened against the territory..." Now maybe Matt has really sound legal reasons for ignoring conditions "b' and 'c'. That's where expert legal opinion needs to be formally introduced into the discussion - Get it?
My regard for Matt remains undiminished. This piece simply isn't up to his usual standard. Sorry!
For those with more legal knowledge than myself, can affiliation with a gang be substituted for a foreign nation or government? What about the minority party of a foreign country?
My question exactly. I didn't think a gang rose to the occasion of foreign government.
Well, I think it would qualify if they were released from prisons by Maduro yo invade the US. How big does an army of terror have to be?
Some countries major exports are drugs or the trafficking of and these gangs or cartels pretty much control the government. We don't want that here.
As I read the statute Matt has provided, two things must happen before deportation and certainly before imprisonment:
1. Citizens of a foreign nation, which nation has declared war or has made some sort of invasion or excursion into the U.S., in case no declared war exists;
2. The deportation cannot take place unless there is first a judicial evidentiary hearing.
Here, Venezuela is not at war with us and is not, as a nation, making some sort of excursion into the U.S. and therefore the first requirement is not satisfied. The suspects might be violating US law, but not this law.
Second, the U S was deporting these aliens without the necessary judicial evidentiary hearing.
Thus, the Court issued an order that no deportation or imprisonment could occur without the necessary and legally required hearing thereon. It was the government clearly violating the law by flying these people to a foreign prison when the requirements of the statute had not been met. Every self-respecting law abiding judge in America—far right to far left —would be constitutionally bound to grant a TRO under these circumstances and would only be subject to impeachment if they went along with the government’s illegal actions.
Just as we would either deport or arrest a spy.
No actual war needs to be ongoing but "an invasion or predatory incursion" must be being "perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government". This is definitely NOT the case, so your argument (and Trump's) falls flat on its face.
Obviously, the war in Europe “ended” on VE Day in May of 1945 with the signing of various agreements by the parties, but the Declaration of War against Germany was not rescinded by Congress until 1952. I agree the Alien and Enemies Act of 1798 does not require a war, nor does it require that Congress declare a “War”. undeclared wars such as Korea and Vietnam are known as wars and would seem to satisfy the requirements within Section 1 of the Act.
Where was the ACLU when Americans are murdered by illegal aliens? Oh right, murder victim rights aren't as high up the woke ladder as illegal alien murderers rights.
The ACLU has been a joke for decades and the woke takeover makes them look even worse than previously thought possible.
This is a double ruse by DJT.
1. Ds defending gang bangers.
2. Every gang banger will either stay low for a while or self deport. That prison video was not made for U.S. citizens but non-citizens without paperwork.
Yep. Those production values don’t happen in a day. This is a PR masterpiece.
Hence the self deport website/app
I briefly joined the ACLU when they promised to fight the "Patriot Act" 20+ years ago. The ACLU immediately focused on any efforts that were contrary to Communist and Socialist goals.
I gave up on the ACLU decades ago when they fought so hard to remove 'in God we trust' from the dollar bill. That's the cause they were going all out for. Pitiful!
“In a ready-to-go lawsuit—the New York Times reported the suit was filed before Trump’s proclamation was announced—the American Civil Liberties Union, which never lifted a finger for a single J6er tormented by the Biden Department of Justice, sought a temporary restraining order (TRO) on behalf of five unnamed Venezuelan terrorists in federal custody and on the brink of being deported. (Another plaintiff, Democracy Forward, has dirty Democratic operative Mark Elias as chairman of its board.)”
https://open.substack.com/pub/juliekelly/p/mortimer-boasbergs-contempt-trap?r=b84py&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
You must be a moron.
If you have a point to make please do. Personal attacks/name calling are not welcome here. Please!
And makes no point. But then it’s not a surprising nor atypical response from a liberal
You find facts objectionable. You are excused.
I strongly disagree with your assessment. The US is in a war with Terrorism similar to that just before and after the attacks on 9-11. If the commander in chief has his hands tied by unelected activists, there is no hope for survival of this Country.
I have a tough time with the comparison to wartime.
Even in wartime, the number of (allegedly) adversarial people seeking to enter (or have been flown in with taxpayer dollars under a listless Biden regime) the country is immediately dwarfed by recent migration numbers.
People who illegally enter the country en masse, who have committed crimes, who bare in-group allegiance to foreign gangs, seems like a state change worth exploring when it comes to comparisons to wartime.
Of course, none of this would be in the Overton window but-for the open borders policy and advocacy of the Biden presidency (paired with partisan lawyers who encourage every illegal immigrant to fabricate stories to attain refugee/asylum status or at least claims that will take five years to adjudicate, which in the interim theyll give birth to US citizens and have a separate claim to remain in the country and take taxpayer dollars in magnitudes that have never been afforded to the generational impoverished communities in america)
See above. Stop listening to the nitwits in the media.
Yes Jeff F. And what motivated Biden to go all in on his open Borders policy. Roberts Supreme Court for one - when they declared war on the definition of citizenship via the Census Ruling - TO INCLUDE ALL BODIES IN THE COUNT - thus drawing ZERO DISTINCTION between legal immigrants awaiting citizenship - and the millions more already here illegally. Why did he do this?
Because the states with high immigrant populations - CALIFORNIA - NEW YORK - ILLINOIS - had experienced massive citizen OUTMIGRATION - THUS JEPORDIZING THEIR CONGRESSIONAL COUNTS - California prior to that ruling was looking at upwards of 10 congressional districts at risk. Similar numbers in NY.
That problem was going to continue unless they went to massive migration policy.
Progressives went all in with open borders - just as they did when this coward refused to grant standing to Ken Paxton regarding the election in 2020. He always told anyone who would listen that he disagreed with Rehnquist regarding Bush V Gore.
Forget Impeachments; Conservatives need a national movement to remove Roberts from the Chief Justice slot - if not off the court entirely.
Read the Guardian (Spotlight) page today. Entitled: I was the Canadian who was detained by US immigration!'
Anything you do wrong in the USA.............you are next on the list!
I am very skeptical of anything written by the Guardian. Douglas Murray just won a large lawsuit and was issued a public apology by their parent company.
Remember that fear mongering is their main mode of operation.
This whole thing makes my blood boil. If the judiciary put an ounce of effort in to protecting the American people from obvious invasion as they do in protecting foreigners we would be a better country, why didn’t a single judge question the Biden’s administration flagrant abuse of asylum when there is no evidence of genocide or war in South America?
It's very telling that so many of the same people vehemently objecting to this expulsion of illegal alien gangsters have never said a single word about the whereabouts of the 300,000+ children allowed into the country with no parental supervision by the previous administration.
Excellent point.
Scumbags
Nothing shows their true colors more clearly than that reality.
Just to make it even worse.
Many of the same gang members are directly responsible for the human trafficking of those children.
The scumbag democrat judges are probably partaking.
The daughter of boasberg works for an organization that defends criminal illegal aliens and thus has a direct incentive to have a large client base.
What a shocker.
Drop every one of them off at Boasberg's house.
That should be interesting.
Marthas Vineyard
How long did the illegals last on Martha’s Vineyard like 24 hours?
And the national guard was called
Matt, I think you are awesome. But somebody has to do something about this scourge of gangs populated by illegal aliens. You could have 2 or 3 years of hearings or just actually do something about it. Trump is just doing something about it - not clutching his pearls to make sure these gang bangers have every right of appeal. If they think they have been wronged make sure the law provides that they can bring their appeal from their country of origin. I expect that the families that have had members killed by these gangs are on board because nothing else has seemed to work.
This is the El Salvador Argument, or alternatively the Zombie Apocalypse Argument.
Everybody knows that in zombie movies, the people who shoot first and ask questions later survive, while the timid folk who hesitate to kill a recently-turned loved one die horrifically. Audiences casually watch, declaring that so-and-so is "dead" and "stupid" the moment they recognize the trademark hesitation.
Similarly, El Salvador's gang problems were extraordinary before Bukele won election on a simple platform of "arrest them all". The gangsters all wear face tattoos, and Bukele put them in prison without trials. Before, people were starving in their homes because it was too unsafe to come out. Now the country flourishes and Bukele's approval has held at 95% for years.
Here's the thing: Bukele is a tyrant. He certainly is. He even laughs about it. He's the sort of tyrant that the public DEMANDS when conditions are allowed to become terrible. The same applies everywhere else; Americans will beg for a "tyrant" if the Left is allowed to do what it does for long enough to make one a preferable solution.
What I'd prefer is less extreme "pragmatism" to get the problems under control before worse becomes inevitable.
'Here's the thing: Bukele is a tyrant. He certainly is. He even laughs about it. He's the sort of tyrant that the public DEMANDS when conditions are allowed to become terrible. The same applies everywhere else; Americans will beg for a "tyrant" if the Left is allowed to do what it does for long enough to make one a preferable solution.'
What was Trumps election? Has he locked down the capital and called out 30k National Guard and put up barbed wire? The Biden Crime family was the most corrupt in American history by far - in so many ways.
The man you call tyrant has delivered his country from hell. He will wear a target AS LONG AS HE BREATHS. HALF OF MEXICO'S RESIDENTS ARE GREEN WITH ENVY for how El Salvadorans can live free and prosper. Ditto throughout South and Central America.
I don't believe you understand what time it is. November was an eleventh-hour reprieve. So too are the upcoming congressional elections. Two years to cripple or destroy the Democrat Party. Hold majorities through at least 2032 to restore this country.
Otherwise, we all will be living through a version of California.
Some people want it to become unbearable in hopes they will "come to the rescue", which seems to be the play of the D party these days.
Here's the problem with your analysis: zombies are fictions. Grow up.
Alan Dershowitz says he does not understand why the Government used the 1798 Alien Enemies Act, when the President has ample authority under the Constitution to deport any alien here on a visa (green card holders may be more complicated) that he deems a threat. Dersh says the Alien Enemies Act is a distraction and weakens the Government case by bogging it down in legal interpretations, when the President's Constitutional power is clear and not contravened by any statute of which he is aware. He further predicts the Government will wake up to this and it will be reflected in their further pleadings.
We shall see.
I disagree. I believe he used it because he wants the public talking about what we are talking about right now - War vs policing action. We have been trying various forms of 'policing actions' for years from W Bush thru Obummer- all before the Democrats opened our borders just as Merkle and the Germans led the EU to do after 2015.
Nobody has understood the importance of public opinion to provide political Capital like Trump since FDR. Not even Reagan. He knows exactly what he is doing.
It seems to me, that even though Trump won a mandate victory, he’s being fought in every order. Over 100 injunctions filed to date. Does he have presidential powers. We had a puppet in “control” for four years that didn’t even know what he was doing and this new president has no rights to try and correct the wrongs put into place by God knows who. Its head scratching
There is a lot of commentary that the judges are pushing these suits to “throw sand into the gears of government “ however I suspect the current administration is doing the reverse. Trump was already deporting criminals by the tens of thousands.
They are doing this because it is exposing activist judges, one after the other.
Let's hope
So, any District Judge can decide and order whatever they want of the Administration. Can they exercise similar power over the Congress. Maybe we can get one who declares the Income Tax null and void. What power do they not believe that they have? The immigration laws are on the books although the Democrats never recognized them. Follow the real law, not the liberal judges law.
Deporting people who have illegally crossed the border into the United States is not an issue subject to judicial review. The law is clear. The only reasonable question that can be asked in this situation is - if they are a foreign national, are they here legally? Thus, if they can not present a visa or green card, they are de facto, here illegally and can be deported.
The next question - where can they be deported to? In this case, Venezuela would be the obvious choice, but since the non-dementia inflicted Venezuelan government emptied their prisons of their most violent and depraved criminals, taking advantage of the "Biden Welcomes the World" open borders program, it's not surprising they don't want these homicidal maniacs back in their country. They effectively transferred their deadly problem to the United States and they aren't going to let the US transfer that problem back to them. To the Venezuelans, borders mean something.
So, again, the question is, where can they be deported to? An uninhabited South Seas island? Devil's Island? Chateau d'If? Australia? Ice Station Zebra? How about El Salvador? It seems that if the Salvadorans are willing to welcome our former newcomers, we should be grateful. And if El Salvador chooses to incarcerate our tariff-free exports, that's their business.
Agree. Just get them fucking somewhere else and OUT of the United States. no one cares what one leftist federal judge thinks about this. We want these scumbags gone and fast. Like yesterday.
I think you're a scumbag. Should we get rid of you?
I'm an American citizen and not a member of a violent gang. Those are very obvious criteria for the scumbag label.
I think you're a gigantic idiot.
US citizenship should not protect you if you are a scumbag. Scumbags are traitors. I have passed my judgment! So be it!
I said I am a US citizen and not a member of a violent gang. Therefore, I am not a criminal who should obviously be deported. I may still be a scumbag, that's fair. My point is only that if you are in the US illegally and also a member of a violent gang, that's 100% scumbag material.
And, the point I am making is that US immigration laws are arbitrary and pernicious. The nation is a concept created in the 1800s to control us. Like the notion of ethnicities or peoples before it, it only ever makes sense from the perspective of a government trying to accomplish specific goals. The nation itself is not a goal but a means to a goal. In our case, the concept of the nation is used by corporate elites to divide us from other people with whom we should feel solidarity. The refugees -- both economic and political -- from Latin America who flee the US policies that impoverish them and endanger their lives are just like the US citizens who suffer from similar policies. We should band together with them to control the corporate elites who use our precarity to drive down wages. Instead, the fatuous right wing imagines they share more in common with corporate elites because of skin color than they do with the others who suffer under the boots of the corporate elite. Trump might have a beer with you for show, but he wouldn't play golf with you.
This is more of a side note: The timeline itself is not an operational timeline and certainly does not include the routing of communications for any actions to terminate or adjust flights. In other words, a DOJ lawyer is not in the direct operational chain to control flights likely carried out by DOS or DOD contractors, or perhaps by DOD aircraft. Think about the chain of calls that need to be made and further consider unknowns such as who to call and at what number -- all of that communications routing is not instantaneous!
So, consider a DOJ lawyer in a hearing with a judge, being issued some oral request and not having immediate information as to which gang member is on what flight, likely not having specific insights into the pending or occurring flights, etc. Who do they call and when? Do they take out their cell proceeding to call after each oral statement by a judge? Is a statement by a district judge enough to begin the process for an operational order that sets off a chain of events across multiple government agencies. When is an order formalized?
Also, consider the time it takes to load a plane until actual take off; then, consider scanning and biometric recordings of who is boarding. The prisoner passengers were likely restrained...and onboarding may have started hours before liftoff. I might go on and on, but the real operational timeline is not so simple.
Assuming that even deep state operatives are aware of the more realistic operational action timeline, is it possible that they figured they could confuse the public with simple date/time stamps, making it appear orders were not acted on, and thus set the stage for a future impeachment that they see predicated on not following a judicial order, even if the order is not formalized nor even legal? Just guessing.
Other than more simple efforts at the last minute to stop or delay an execution, complex orders or injunctions do not give the judiciary power for immediate and direct operational control of the executive department. Again, there may be better legal terminology to express this, but these district judges suffer from overreach at the very least.
John Roberts should understand this. His nuanced positioning on the recent rulings seems to indicate he is not serving the Constitution first. Who is his master then?
I think we can all remember the timeline on January 6. Having to navigate the protocols etc to get the national guard in place. By the time they arrived it was over. Welcome to the US Government and in this case yahoo
Roberts is an institutionalist, meaning he puts more weight upon case law and precedent.
As compared to a strict constitutionalist on the one hand, and a liberal on the other.
Legal analyst Gregg Jarrett broke it down pretty well in this piece. The statue states: "whenever there is a declared war or any "predatory incursion"" with operative word being or. It was used by Woodrow Wilson and Harry Truman well AFTER WWl and WWll had both ended. https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/gregg-jarrett-law-supports-trumps-deportation-violent-gang-members-despite-judges-errant-ruling
The tiimeline goes back a bit further. Here is what the Supreme Court said about it in 1952 -
The conditions for entry of every alien, the particular classes of aliens that shall be denied entry altogether, the basis for determining such classification, the right to terminate hospitality to aliens, the grounds on which such determination shall be based, have been recognized as matters solely for the responsibility of the Congress and wholly outside the power of this Court to control.
I think that had to do with who we would "permit" to enter. Not illegally entered people.
It has to do with deporting legal residents. See "Harisiades v. Shaughnessy". So, presumably applies to illegals as well.
Thank you for this complete timeline. I want the gang members gone and we have built many legal boxing rings around the country to make sure the lawyers can fight it out. Meanwhile the bad guys are locked up and going nowhere. What I don't understand is why the ACLU wants to engage on the side of the gangs.
ACLU has been taken over by activist. Watch Bill Maher interview with the former leader.